Posts by Brian Gray5

The fan edits on YouTube are way more entertaining than the actual movie. Everything else was just a massive waste of time.
I mean, for 🤮, they basically just took some exaggerated psychological drama from fairy tales and comic books and tried to force it into a plot.
And Milla Jovovich? She’s such an overacting, talentless hack; honestly, it’s only a matter of time before she gets some plastic surgery just to try and boost her ratings.

Throw in some sadism too, just to spice things up.
https://pro.psychcentral.com/exhaust...scariest-boss/

That whole conversation inside the shipping container really lays out what the Woman is actually there for.
Plus, the way they highlight the gap between human intelligence and AI is spot on.

briskbison55 said:Honestly, it feels like you guys are just letting mediocre musicians serve you up whenever you're in the mood for this kind of nonsense. I've said it before.

Are you trying to run an ad or something?

briskwalker10 said:It’s been hardwired into our DNA for at least 200,000 years. Am I wrong?

So what, there aren't any other social networks out there like this one??

Donna Doyle2 said:So why do you guys keep bothering to post and contribute here when it’s obvious you’re being treated unfairly by the "higher powers"?
(I mean, I'm not telling you to leave, I'm just genuinely curious)

Is it just a hardwired need for justice combined with a lack of decent social media alternatives?

Look, without getting into the messy details of who did what to whom, I think it’s incredibly shady how the mods here constantly turn a deaf ear to everyone's complaints. Honestly, it's pathetic. And look, I'm someone who can speak multiple languages, so I know a thing or two about communication—this isn't working.

Man, they should've just sent Schwarz in there with a minigun to level the whole place. It would've saved us from all this stupidly sweet, sappy nonsense. 😁

bluecanyon643 said:I’d say this sci-fi flick sits in pretty much the same category as Hereditary for me.

The pacing is slow, the story builds up, and you really feel the tension growing... everything seems fine and actually quite engaging, but then, instead of hitting a solid, logical climax, the whole thing just falls apart with some stupid, pathetic ending.😵

Actually, the ending is as logical as it gets. It’s incredibly realistic. You obviously missed some key points.

David Barrett7 said:Honestly, this was a really solid film. It’s incredibly well-rounded with a clear beginning, middle, and end, which—I have to admit—wasn't what I was expecting.

I loved how they showcased the world outside; there are some truly stunning shots in there.

I was actually shocked to read that the robot wasn't made with CGI! The practical effects work is so seamless that its movements feel much more organic and lifelike. 👍

As for that undeservedly low score on IMDb, I stopped looking at that site as a reliable metric for quality a long time ago.

This movie is the polar opposite of today's hollow Marvel's popcorn flicks, and that explains why the general mass audience rated it the way they did.

8/10

Mother knows best after all 😁

"Mother" has these two little bright spots on her "face" that shift positions symmetrically... has anyone else noticed any kind of causality there, like actual human facial expressions? I find it hard to believe they did that by accident, though I haven't been able to connect it to anything happening in the plot yet. Maybe I need to give it another watch.

goldenhound32 said:To put it bluntly, humanity basically orchestrated its own downfall, leaving a machine to step up and shoulder the burden of restarting the species.

The logic follows that it cultivates embryos, waiting indefinitely for that one specific embryo destined to become the mother of all mankind.

Once that biological progenitor is finally identified, the machine’s purpose is fulfilled, leading it to effectively remove itself from the equation entirely.

And just like that, the narrative reaches its conclusion.

It was actually a solid film—remarkably well-rounded in its execution.

Hmm... sure, if you want to strip it down, but the movie is way more complex than that because it dives into those eternal ethical dilemmas—like throwing a Trolley problem into... well, how do I talk about this without giving away a massive spoiler...
But I agree, it’s a solid, well-wrapped film. A sequel would basically just be carrot-and-stick bait for a cash grab. Real masters might actually pull off a decent variation on the theme—kind of like how Cameron delivered Terminator 2—but I fear there are very few people left in this hyper-commercialized industry with enough backbone to be truly independent. Then again, it clearly wasn't designed to be some record-breaking blockbuster, so if there ever was a sequel, we wouldn't have to deal with studio executives breathing down an auteur's neck quite as much.
As far as I'm concerned, though, let it stay exactly as it is.

Jesse Thomas7 said:Sorry, but I can't find this anywhere on Netflix. I'm positive I typed the title in correctly. 🤷

It’s on the Theater site with subtitles. Just a heads up: don't bother reading the comments before you watch it. Most of them are pretty mindless anyway.

It’s a fantastic piece, packed with all those subtle, hidden details that really make you stop and think about what they actually imply. Once you finally piece everything together, the whole thing clicks into one terrifyingly cohesive picture.

Mark Cruz15 said:Is this like that bit where he was making fun of Monty for lying about having a wife and kids and being some big, doughy guy? I guess it’s pretty obvious why he scrubbed that from the record now. 😁

Exactly... 😁

For a split second, I actually thought someone had started a thread about the toolmaker... but nope, never mind...

By the way, why did you just delete a line from your signature?

Most of what we spend our lives doing is basically just one big farce... but the version where idiots call the shots is 🤣

Oh, brilliant.^

mistybison said:The "Philosophy" subforum is basically a guys' pub, so I’d suggest the author stick to other sections to discuss her interests. 🙂

Maybe try the women's corner? Though, in there, women haven't just evolved—they've reached some kind of supernatural, untouchable, divine status.

Megan Green72 said:Nobody is claiming evolution is "done" for anyone—the whole argument is whether it's still ongoing for women while everyone just ignores what's happening with men.

Should women have to accept their innate biological obligations, or should abortion be an option—a privilege that allows women to evolve into higher beings through sexual agency?

What exactly do men need to do to "evolve into higher beings"? What rights are we supposed to hand them? Or are they already there?
This is just straight-up sexism wrapped up in pseudo-philosophy—honestly, watching people try to justify this stuff is pathetic.

Good grief. Their evolution finished the second they managed to land a woman; after that, they’re free to obsess over philosophy, TIPS, and watching sports with a beer in hand. It’s up to women to achieve that same level of fulfillment on their own terms (minus the sports and the beer, obviously). Honestly, I think some women have already cracked the code by ditching their biological programming and living life on their own terms—something one of our dear colleagues here pointed out earlier.
So, tell me again, where exactly is the sexism in that? 🤷

Andrew Booth29 said:My apologies for the barking earlier; it was merely a rhetorical device—a parable, if you will—and I certainly didn't expect you to take it so literally.

In this specific post, you seem to be operating under the assumption that a woman's evolution—psychological, cultural, sociological, and so on—is already complete. That's a rather peculiar claim to make. Perhaps you're right, but the mere fact that something still possesses the capacity for progress isn't inherently a bad thing. In fact, you're suggesting that the human race as a whole has reached Nirvana, hit the finish line, and that progress is a dead end. Any textbook on philosophy or spirituality will give you endless examples of how humanity continues to strive for advancement.

Simone de Beauvoir posited that the institution of motherhood serves as a manifestation of patriarchal oppression against women. In the opening thesis of this thread, I see a repetition of that very sentiment. I'll quote the great S. de Beauvoir:

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to bring up her children… because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”

In my own loose translation: "Women shouldn't be allowed to just stay home and raise kids... because if that choice exists, far too many women will take it. It becomes a way of steering women in a specific direction."

The thread starter himself pits biological maternal instinct against the possibility of female evolution. He clarifies this in one post, responding to a question from a colleague:

It’s also worth noting that the aforementioned Simone de Beauvoir was quite active regarding abortion rights—a dimension that ties her directly to this thesis.

And our dear colleague here, Letec, had this to say:

So, she isn't just confirming the possibility of sexual evolution; she’s actually allowing for it in men too (though in another post, she bluntly claims men are just stupid). I should mention, she is an experienced and highly respected member of this forum, and she clearly understands exactly what is being discussed here.

As for our colleague bluecyclist64, I'm still waiting for his quote. However, I don't know how much you've kept up with past drama on this forum, but he might not be your best ally on this specific issue.

edit: I see now that bluecyclist64 has been banned, which explains the silence. I don't doubt he'll resurface eventually.

So, basically, this lady believes humans—women included—evolved from animals simply by hooking up without any social strings or moral hang-ups attached? Good for her for being so liberated. And good luck to her husband, assuming he managed to snag her during that "animalistic" phase. He must be feeling pretty zen, much like Šeks, having such a free-spirited and independent woman by his side.

Andrew Booth29 said:My apologies for the barking earlier; it was merely a rhetorical device—a parable, if you will—and I certainly didn't expect you to take it so literally.

In this specific post, you seem to be operating under the assumption that a woman's evolution—psychological, cultural, sociological, and so on—is already complete. That's a rather peculiar claim to make. Perhaps you're right, but the mere fact that something still possesses the capacity for progress isn't inherently a bad thing. In fact, you're suggesting that the human race as a whole has reached Nirvana, hit the finish line, and that progress is a dead end. Any textbook on philosophy or spirituality will give you endless examples of how humanity continues to strive for advancement.

Simone de Beauvoir posited that the institution of motherhood serves as a manifestation of patriarchal oppression against women. In the opening thesis of this thread, I see a repetition of that very sentiment. I'll quote the great S. de Beauvoir:

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to bring up her children… because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”

In my own loose translation: "Women shouldn't be allowed to just stay home and raise kids... because if that choice exists, far too many women will take it. It becomes a way of steering women in a specific direction."

The thread starter himself pits biological maternal instinct against the possibility of female evolution. He clarifies this in one post, responding to a question from a colleague:

It’s also worth noting that the aforementioned Simone de Beauvoir was quite active regarding abortion rights—a dimension that ties her directly to this thesis.

And our dear colleague here, Letec, had this to say:

So, she isn't just confirming the possibility of sexual evolution; she’s actually allowing for it in men too (though in another post, she bluntly claims men are just stupid). I should mention, she is an experienced and highly respected member of this forum, and she clearly understands exactly what is being discussed here.

As for our colleague bluecyclist64, I'm still waiting for his quote. However, I don't know how much you've kept up with past drama on this forum, but he might not be your best ally on this specific issue.

edit: I see now that bluecyclist64 has been banned, which explains the silence. I don't doubt he'll resurface eventually.

Why not? I get the impression his wife is absolutely thrilled.